Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Kainaw

Change of RFC
For anyone reading this RFC, it is important to note that the RFC was altered after the discussion for questionable reasons. The initial RFC was:
 * Statement of dispute
 * User:Kainaw has accused User:Philcha of "attempting to bypass the deletion process for a page he knows will not pass any scrutiny", and stated that User:Philcha's motivation for this is that "Philcha is closely related to the author of the page (if not the author)".
 * Desired outcome
 * Kainaw is instructed to apologise to me for incivility and to read articles and their refs before commenting on them.

Because the statement was false and the desired outcome unsupported, the RFC was changed to a completely different subject for which I already stated that I was wrong. The discussion on this page is in reference to the original RFC, not the amended one, and should be read as though it is referencing the original RFC. If one assumes it is about the amended RFC, the meaning of the words may very well change. -- k a i n a w &trade; 12:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Prod
So it appears that this began with a disputed {{subst:prod}} on Chessmetrics? Kainaw, did you happen to read WP:PROD closely? The process is this: There is no requirement that the removal of a prod notice be discussed in advance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Someone adds {{subst:prod}} to an article.
 * Someone else disagrees and removes it.
 * The first editor (or any other interested editor) either agrees with them (and stops) or disagrees with them and files an Articles for deletion case.


 * The disputed prod happened before I made any comments. My comments were directed at my impression of Philcha's apparent refusal to discuss the notability of the article.  If he couldn't come up with something better than "a lot of pages link here", then he shouldn't have removed the prod.  I've stated repeatedly that it is my opinion that Philcha claimed to be certain of notability and should have added a reference to the article.  His failure to do so and his overreaction to being told that his comments gave me a bad impression is what caused this RFC.  And, yes, I have read prod.  It states that if someone disagrees with the prod remove it.  However, I assume it implies that someone disagrees with it for a valid reason.  What would you say if I went around removing every prod because I think the weather is a bit too chilly right now?  The prod removal isn't the basis for this RFC.  Philcha's hurt feelings at being told his actions gave me a bad impression and his apparent need to mend his ego is all this RFC is about. --  k a i n a w &trade; 01:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Kainaw's vey first comment in that discussion implied I was acting in bad faith. His second made the same insinuation about the whole of Wikiproject Chess. At that point another user agreed that Kainaw should apologise. I then field the RFC. Shortly after I did that, a third user agreed that Kainaw had insulted the whole of Wikiproject Chess, then a few hours later endosred the RFC. I then amnded the RFC.
 * This is not about whether my ego is fragile - I think only Kainaw has made that allegation :-)
 * I checked Kainaw's track record before even considering an RFC, and found that he glories in incivility. I've dealt with such people before. Unfortunately I also know editors whose self-confidence is less robust and have seen some bullied out of discussions - I won't name names because these matters have now been resolved, as far as I can see. But it would be in Wikipedia's interests to stop Kainaw's persistent bad behaviour before he drives good but less confident editors away.
 * As for refusal to discuss the article's notability, I drew attention to the fact that the article cited two academics who had chosen Chessmetrics to help them analyse whether Soviet players had colluded in a world championship eliminator tournament. The Talk page contains clear evidence that Kainaw never read the article or the citation. -- Philcha (talk) 06:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, this gives me the impression that Philcha is purposely bending the facts in an attempt to get an apology for pointing out his inability to state notability in his article. My first comment stated a verifiable fact.  Philcha's actions gave me the impression that he was avoiding discussion of notability because that may lead to deletion.  The "second user" must be Peter Ballard who, when pushed to sign this RFC, stated "I feel like I've been put in an awkward position now. I gave my approval for you to quote me. I didn't say I would sign anything!"  The "third user" is apparently Sjakkalle who stated "I cannot endorse the 'desired outcome' that Kainaw be 'instructed' to apologize."  Also, Sjakkale's opinion is based on my comment about the chess community, not my comment about my impression of Philcha.  Finally, Philcha is being very literal about an apology.  I have stated multiple times in multiple areas that my comment about the chess community was "obviously wrong".  Apparently, he demands that all apologies include the magic word "sorry."  This leads to my question of the amendment of the RFC.  From what I see, it was done in bad faith to lure Sjakkale into the argument.  Now that he (she?) has seen the entire sequence of events, he has apparently abandoned the discussion.  Finally, there is no way that this can be seen as anything other than Philcha's feeble attempt to get an apology for exposing his inability to properly reference his article.  He claims, "Kainaw has reamined unapologetic of these accusations," which he (and everyone involved) knows is a completely false statement.  I have repeatedly stated that my comment about the chess community was obviously wrong.  All that is left is Philcha's claim that my impression of his actions demands an apology. --  k a i n a w &trade; 12:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm.
 * Kainaw, do you actually object to saying something like "I apologize for my statement, which was obviously wrong" instead of something like "I have already stated repeatedly that my comment was obviously wrong"? Or are you just resisting this request because you think the social ritual of a formal apology is stupid?
 * Philcha, can you explain why Kainaw's repeated acknowledgment of his mistake isn't good enough? Do you really think that "I was wrong" is materially different from "I apologize for having been wrong"?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have just rechecked Talk:Chessmetrics and, while Kainaw has concdeed that Chessmetrics is notable, as far as I can see he has not retracted in any way "My impression is that Philcha is closely related to the author of the page (if not the author) and is attempting to bypass the deletion process for a page he knows will not pass any scrutiny" nor has he retracted in any way "However, as I said, the chess world obviously doesn't care as long as they get their warm fuzzy feeling from twisting Wikipedia into their own little cozy corner of the web." -- Philcha (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how Philcha interprets "Obviously so" in response to Sjakkalle's comment that my statement was "completely false, and a cheap stab at the very integrity of the chess writers at Wikipedia." I thought it was apparent to everyone that I was stating that my comment about the chess community was obviously wrong, obviously false, and obviously a cheap stab.  I repeated on Sjakkalle's talk page that my comment was obviously wrong.  I repeated on this RFC that my comment was obviously wrong.  It is intended as an honest apology for my statement.  It is my opinion that saying "I'm sorry" is meaningless.  Saying "I was obviously wrong" has meaning.  In this RFC, others have said the same thing - forcing someone to use a magic word (such as sorry) is meaningless.
 * As for my comment about Philcha, that is a verifiable fact. When did we have to start apologizing for verifiable facts?  Do I need to publish a paper on it to cite it as a source?  This response from Philcha goes further to demonstrate that he purposely bends the truth to try and lure others into his support.
 * Finally, I did not concede that Chessmetrics is notable. I even stated, "Telling someone that they need third-party sources (which, in this case means anything not written by Sonas) does not mean that the topic is not notable, it simply means that the person has not shown notability." I then applauded Peter for doing what needed to be done - putting a reference in the article that shows the topic is notable.  I even stated that I searched for articles on Chessmetrics.  I was trying to find a reference, but I was unable to find anything not written by Sonas.  From my point of view, there were three people trying to fix a bad article: Sentriclecub, Peter Ballard, and myself. --  k a i n a w &trade; 00:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The ref in question is present in Chessmetrics as at 7 Aug 2008, long before any of this started. Kainaw didn't read the article or its refs, he just started throwing insults. -- Philcha (talk) 07:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have let it slide many times when you have stated "Kainaw didn't read the article or reference." When Peter stated that the reference was no good, you accepted his statement.  So, I will make this painfully clear.  Your grand reference has one reference to Chessmetrics: "Our data were supplied by Jeff Sonas of Chessmetrics.com and include all non-playoff games of FIDE events..."  That is it.  Nothing else.  This is a passing mention of Chessmetics.com.  It has nothing to do with the chessmetics algorithm.  It has nothing to do with notability.  As I stated initially - after reading this reference - and as both Peter and I have stated, you must have a reference that says something about how notable the chessmetrics algorithm is.  Continually passing off a comment about getting some data from Sonas as a statement of notability is deceitful, just as this entire RFC has been.  I cannot see any way in which you have been working in good faith.  Each statement continues to accuse others of bad faith (ie: Kainaw didn't read the article) and tell purposeful half-truths (ie: Kainaw has never apologized).  As for my comment - you may consider it throwing an insult.  I was stating a verifiable fact.  It is still my impression that you are closely related to the author of the article.  I really don't care if my impression of you hurts your feelings.  I only care about making Wikipedia better - which includes adding proper references to articles. --  k a i n a w &trade; 12:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Peter Ballard pointed out a problem and I realised I'd confused two versions of their paper. I've fixed that. If Kainaw had read the article and ref making his first comment in the discussion he could have pointed that out. Instead he questioned my objectivy and good faith. Now that I've pointed out the evidence that he started making accusations before reading anything, he repeates the offensive remark - "It is still my impression that you are closely related to the author of the article" immediately above.
 * His remark shows the same disregard for facts that he has shown from the start. There's no need to him to form an "impression", as he can easily check the article's history - and should have done that before making his first comments at Talk:Chessmetrics. -- Philcha (talk) 13:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Philcha, if an editor says, "This ref does not support the statement," or remarks to that effect, it is not actually necessary for the editor to explicitly say "I have read this ref, and it does not support the statement." You should assume (as part of your good faith efforts) that no editor would bother lying about something that is so trivially verified.  And indeed, the passing mention of Chessmetrics in the source (assuming, always, that Kainaw reports its contents accurately) is entirely insufficient to support any claim for notability.
 * It sounds like your real complaint is that Kainaw accuses you of violating WP:SOCK ("meatpuppet" provisions), or otherwise having a conflict of interest. Do deny having any connection to Chessmetrics, its authors/owners/books/whatever?  We could file a checkuser if we need to.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Philcha, you are not required to answer this question (or to participate in the RFC), but I'm reminding you about it in case you missed it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, WhatamIdoing, I must have missed your query in my watchlist.
 * Kainaw did not say anything like "This ref does not support the statement" - it was a member of Wikiproject Chess who pointed out the problem. Kainaw's very first comment in the discussion was "As the article stands, it should be up for deletion as non-notable. The tag was added properly. Removing it was done absolutely improperly. Once up for deletion, a discussion must take place before removal of the tag. My impression is that Philcha is closely related to the author of the page (if not the author) and is attempting to bypass the deletion process for a page he knows will not pass any scrutiny. So, unless Philcha can provide some citations from someone who did not create the chessmetrics process, I suggest it be nominated for speedy deletion, not just non-notable deletion. It is very simple, refusal to follow the rules indicates that your article is less notable, not more notable."
 * I have no connection whatever with Chessmetrics or Jeff Sonas, in fact I didn't take it seriously until I read the Moul & Nye article, since I was unimpressed by the conclusions of another statistical system used in Keene & divinsky's Warrors of the Mind.
 * I've just Googled to find out what a checkuser is, and I've nothing to hide. -- Philcha (talk) 19:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) I figured that it just got overlooked; it's easy to miss something.

Yes, I've read Kainaw's remarks. Kainaw indicated that the refs did not support notability for the article. Kainaw was right about that -- at that time. The situation appears to have changed, and everyone seems basically satisfied with the subject's notability now.

The other thing Kainaw did was to accuse you of being a biased editor due to undisclosed connections to the subject of the article. It's not actually rude to suspect conflicts of interest. They do happen, after all. Some companies actually assign employees to the task of making their entry look good. Friends and family members stick up for people they know personally. I've seen articles about books edited by the authors, for example, and a remarkable number of non-profit agencies think that the best way to increase their donations is to spam their website to multiple Wikipedia articles. If you have concrete reasons to suspect a conflict of interest, it is entirely appropriate to mention your concerns.

You assert that you have no connections to the subject. That's fine.

Kainaw, will you accept this assertion as likely being true? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Certainly. I was merely stating my impression of Philcha's actions.  I was not making a statement about Philcha himself.  I feel it is necessary to point out that my impression was that Philcha was the primary author of the article or closely related to the primary author.  I made no claim that he was closely related to Chessmetrics or Sonas or that he was a sock.  I understand how my comment could be misread that way, but that isn't what I wrote. --  k a i n a w &trade; 02:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Philcha, are you connected to whoever originally wrote the Wikipedia article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Checking authorship... shows that Philcha authored half of the current article.  Previous to his in-depth addition, the article was pretty much just a stub. --  k a i n a w &trade; 17:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As I said, I've nothing to hide. If Kainaw had produced up front what he's just produced, I'd have responded "So what? That's normal when an article is upgraded from a stub." However his statement at Talk:Chessmetrics "My impression is that Philcha is closely related to the author of the page (if not the author) and is attempting to bypass the deletion process for a page he knows will not pass any scrutiny" suggests that he hadn't checked the article's history at that time and was just lashing out at me, as he later did at Wikiproject Chess. -- Philcha (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I still fail to see the lashing out. You are not hiding that you wrote at least half the article.  You are not hiding that the only reference in the article not written by Sonas did not (at the time) support notability.  You are not hiding that you removed the proposed deletion for non-notability tag.  You are not hiding that you did not add a reference of notability to the article when you removed the tag.  By removing a non-notability tag without providing notability, I get the impression that you are either the author (which is known to be the case) or closely related to the author.  How is that lashing out? --  k a i n a w &trade; 19:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "You are not hiding that you wrote at least half the article" - of course not, it was a stub before, so that's normal. However you did not check that first, or you would have quoted the history instead of "My impression is ..."
 * I admit I made a mistake with the ref, but your first entry (quoted above) did not mention that and in fact it was pointed by another member of Wikiproject chess, after your second comment which was an insult to the whole Wikiproject. I promptly corrected the mistake.
 * Hence it's fair to describe your behaviour as lashing out. -- Philcha (talk) 22:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If I don't read the entire edit history of an article before stating my impression (which turns out to be correct), then I am lashing out? Of course not.  That is ridiculous.  If you admit that you made a mistake the day after I ask for a citation showing notability, then I am lashing out?  Of course not.  That is bending the timeline (which you have repeatedly done).  If I state the article is in a non-notable state and ask for citations of notability without including the verbatim disclaimer "I read every reference currently in the article", then I am lashing out?  Of course not.  Any reasonable person would assume that I was making my statement after checking the current references.  If I lash out at other people at a later time, then I am lashing out at you?  Of course not.  You can't grab random comments made at different times to different people and put them together to derive new meaning from them.  If you promptly correct the mistake the day after I brought attention to it, I am lashing out?  Of course not.  You just fixed your mistake.  Great.  It appears to me that the fair description is that you are purposely trying to bend the truth instead of simply stating that you read my comment with the assumption of bad faith and, as such, assumed that I didn't read the references (which I did) and that I was simply lashing out at you (which I wasn't).
 * So, if you demand that I accept that everything I type must be read with whatever intentions you decide to place in my head, how do you justify these comments:
 * " [Kainaw] refused at least twice to read the Moul & Nye ref in the article, the full text of which is available for free." User Talk:Peter Ballard. It is reasonably implied that I did read the article from my very first comment and I never stated once "I refuse to read that article."  The fact is that you didn't read it until Peter told you that it didn't say what you claimed it said.
 * "We told [Sentriclecub] there was a good ref in the article and he refused do accept it." User Talk:Peter Ballard. As above, the reference was not good.  There was no reason for anyone to accept it.
 * "The Talk page contains clear evidence that Kainaw never read the article or the citation." (above). Where is the clear evidence that you claim exists?  Where is the evidence that you read the article?
 * I can go on and on. This just comes down the fact that you made a minor mistake and assumed that the reference said something that it didn't and then assumed bad faith upon anyone who questioned the validity of using that reference for notability.  It is an honest mistake.  Your repeated statements that could just as well be read as "lashing out" demonstrate your refusal to honestly admit your mistake.  It is my opinion that you owe Sentriclecub an apology for smearing his name just you've been attempting to do mine. --  k a i n a w &trade; 00:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) Philcha,

I'm just not seeing the problem here.

You've been "accused" of being so familiar with an article that you probably wrote it. In fact, you substantially expanded the stub. Am I supposed to believe that this is somehow an insult?

The article was "accused" of not having demonstrated its notability through suitable third-party references. You agreed that the references (at that time) were inadequate for establishing notability.

What is the problem? That Kainaw was right about your significant improvement of a neglected stub? That Kainaw was blunt about the ref being inadequate? That Kainaw apparently doesn't want to be your friend? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Kainaw said nothing about the ref being inadequate, and the chronology of the discussion indicates that he was unaware of it.
 * Kaimaw either negligently or deliberately misrepresented the content of the ref concerned when he said " This is a passing mention of Chessmetics.com. It has nothing to do with the chessmetics algorithm" (12:46, 26 September 2008, above). The key passage is quoted at Chessmetrics and says "Ratings in chess that make use of rigorous statistics to produce good estimates of relative player strength are now relatively common, but comparing ratings across different time periods is often complicated by idiosyncratic changes (cf. Elo, 1968 for the pioneering discussion). Sonas uses the same rating formula throughout our sample and updates this rating monthly instead of annually, as is more common. Moreover, retrospective grading allows him to establish rankings that are unbiased estimates of the “true” relative strengths of players."
 * User:Peter Ballard, pointed out (12:32, 17 September 2008 UTC) that I'd quoted the "touring" verion of Moul & Nye rather than the published version, lives in Australia, while I like in the UK. Given time-zone difference (about 12 hours), I corrected the mistake fairly promptly (13:45, 17 September 2008 UTC and 23:01, 18 September 2008 UTC) - and thanked him for pointing it out. Kainaw did not raise or contribute to resolving that issue.
 * The version mix-up was pointed out and resolved after:
 * Kainaw's insinuation that I was not objective, User:Peter Ballard's agreement that Chessmetrics is notable and his agreement that Kainaw should apologise to me.
 * Kainaw's subsequent slur on Wikiproject Chess and the objections raised to that (all 16 Sept).
 * WhatamIdoing, it might be a good idea for you to review the chronology of Talk:Chessmetrics andTalk:Chessmetrics. I think the facts will support what I have said in this RFC discussion.
 * Kainaw claims above that he has "repeatedly stated that my comment about the chess community was obviously wrong." I have searched through all his commnets at Talk:Chessmetrics and can find no such statement.
 * Finally Kainaw says, "It is my opinion that you owe Sentriclecub an apology for smearing his name just you've been attempting to do mine." That was unwise:
 * I do not see that anything I have written, either here or at Talk:Chessmetrics, is a smear on Sentriclecub.
 * In his post at Talk:Chessmetrics of 04:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC), Sentriclecub repeatedly distances himself from Kainaw: "Please wait, Don't group me together with everyone else. I don't want to disrespect the editors who have made all the hundreds of chessmetrics contributions"; "I think Kainaw's response was a little bit heated ..." -- Philcha (talk) 08:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm tired of this. Until you can provide some proof that I did not read the article, did not read the reference, and then lashed out for no reason at all, I will not be responding further. --  k a i n a w &trade; 13:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * From Kainaw's very first post at Talk:Chessmetrics, "... unless Philcha can provide some citations from someone who did not create the chessmetrics process ..." The article did that at the time and still does, check the history. The only explanation I xcan see for Kainaw's words is that he had not read the text of the article, let alone the relevant citation. In that case his comments about me and about Wikiproject Chess were gratuitous insults. -- Philcha (talk) 16:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That is an outright lie. The article contained a quote that was not found in any of the references.  I did read the article.  I did read the references (which you obviously did not do).  It was very clear that the quote was not in any of the references.  You have already admitted in this very conversation that the reference attached to the article at that time did not contain the quote from the article.  It did not contain anything remotely close to showing notability.  If you insist on using this lie to support your argument, then you are making it obvious that your argument is completely invalid.  You have repeatedly made false accusations and assumed bad faith here.  You have no basis for claiming that I did not read the article.  You have no basis for claiming that I did not read the references.  You have no basis for claiming that my impression that you wrote much of the article is false.  I have no more interest in this argument as you are simply going to respond with another blatant lie and refuse to accept the truth that everyone else sees is painfully obvious.  You failed to read the reference.  You failed to add a reference of notability.  You assumed bad faith.  You bent the truth and outright lied to get others to side with you.  You can continue arguing with yourself about this. --  k a i n a w &trade; 16:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Refs
Okay, Philcha, let me go over this in rather more detail than the situation actually warrants:


 * Kainaw's first comment at Talk:Chessmetrics was at 00:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC).
 * At the time of Kainaw's first comment, there were exactly three references in the article. The previous edit (by you) had been finished at 21:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC), which is a little less than three hours before Kainaw's first comment on the talk page.  The three references present in the article at that time were:
 * The Chessmetrics website
 * Something written by Jeff Sonas (the person that runs Chessmetrics.com)
 * A paper by Moul and Nye. In this paper, the sole reference to Chessmetrics is this:  "Our data were supplied by Jeff Sonas of Chessmetrics.com"
 * Not true. If you click the "download" link at the Social Sciences Network page, as per the words "Full article freely available via links on the cited web page", in the citation, it shows 4 download links, its own & 3 mirrors. The first one contains the words that are currently quoted in the article. The version of the Chessmetrics article you mentioned it contained wording from another later version that Moul & Nye later took "on tour" to seminars - this is the error that Peter Ballard pointed out after Kainaw had made uncivil remarks about me and then about Wikiproject chess. -- Philcha (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Philcha, I clicked on both links in the ref as it existed at the exact moment that Kainaw made his first comment. Both clickable links led to the same page.  I found no mention of Chessmetrics at all on that page.  I then clicked on "Download" and searched the entire pdf file for "Chessmetrics".  That word appears on page 11, in the sentence I quoted above.  It also appears on page 23, in the pdf's "References" section.
 * You will forgive me for belaboring the obvious here: I looked at the actual reference actually cited in the actual version of the Wikipedia article at the actual moment that Kainaw made his first comment.  It contains no support for Chessmetrics' notability.  If you (or someone else) accidentally cited the wrong source, that is not my, or Kainaw's, fault.  You cannot expect editors to judge notability based on the version of a source that you meant to cite but didn't.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Kainaw's first comment said that the article had not demonstrated notability and that it should be deleted.
 * Kainaw's first comment also demonstrates that he misunderstood the prod process. Additionally, he "accused" you of having improved the article, and "accused" you of being the same as every other editor with respect to judging the merits of our own work and the notability of our favorite topics without bias.  However, the fundamental import of his first comment was that notability was not currently demonstrated and so this article should have been deleted.
 * Everyone, including you, now agrees that none of those three refs are adequate for demonstrating notability.
 * See above about versions of the Moul & Nye article.
 * However Kainaw's first comment includes "... unless Philcha can provide some citations from someone who did not create the chessmetrics process ..." claims that there were no citations, not that the citation was mixed up. If Kainaw read Chessmetrics as at that time and followed the citation link, he should explain why he did not say plainly that he had read the citation and not found the words quoted by the version of the Chessmetrics article you mentioned, as Peter Ballard did about a day later. I can provide no rational explanation for his claim that the citation mentions Chessmetrics only as a data source, since both version of Moul & Nye explain why they consider it superior to Elo ratings, and the predictive capabilities of a rating systme were crucial for the type of analysis Moul & Nye set out to do. You should ask Kainaw to explain his claim that the citation mentions Chessmetrics only as a data source. -- Philcha (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't need to ask Kainaw, because I already know why he regarded it as a simple claim that Chessmetrics was a data source. Kainaw doubtless believes that Chessmetrics was cited as a data source simply because it says exactly that, in plain, direct English, at the bottom of page 11:  "Our data were supplied by Jeff Sonas of Chessmetrics.com".  The fact that the authors go on to say that they prefer this source to that source is unimportant.  A statement that amounts to "I like X better than Y" doesn't make either X or Y notable.
 * The fact that one ref was not written by Sonas is immaterial. The fact remains that the actual refs at the time did not support notability.  You keep nitpicking at the exact phrasing of Kainaw's comment and falsely asserting that he had a duty to explain his review process in detail so that you would know exactly and precisely what he had and hadn't done to reach his conclusion.  Kainaw is not required to have done anything like this.  You could have asked him nicely to explain, but you didn't.  You could have looked up the prod rules and educated Kainaw, but you didn't.  You could have done a lot of things to defuse this situation, but you didn't.  You got on your high horse and demanded an apology, and when Kainaw didn't grovel suitably, you decided to follow your WP:POINTy "fight fire with fire" attitude instead of solving problems and improving the encyclopedia.
 * I don't intend to exonerate Kainaw: he made some mistakes.  However, you might want to reflect on this fact:  every time you resurrect this complaint that Kainaw didn't get every jot and tittle correct, or didn't behave in some fashion that would have been ideally suited for your purposes, my originally favorable impression of you sinks noticeably.  I also suggest that you consider the meaning of the RFC/U instructions:  "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors."
 * An RFC/U is a part of dispute resolution. It's goal is to solve problems, reconcile positions, and get everyone back to improving the encyclopedia.  It is not a tool of punishment or a badge of shame.  It is now time for you to decide what you really want -- or more precisely, what you're willing to settle for, because you will apparently not get (much of) an apology from Kainaw, and your position appears to me to be long on outraged pride but rather short on actual policy transgressions.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * WhatamIdoing, I dont't think you have read the citation properly. The words currently quoted in Chessmetrics are in the citation. They amount to "Chessmetrics is the best rating system we've found."
 * Re my attitude, you'll find I've had plenty of courteous discussions with peolpe who've had different points of view, and thanked them if they've pointed out mistakes or made me better informed. Peter Ballard's note about the mix-up over the Moul & Nye ref is just one example. In fact I've been involved in some fairly vigorous debates that remained civil (in one case an arbitrator thanked the protagonsits for their civility). You will note that my tone in this discussion has remained civil despite the fact that I disagree strongly with many of your comments.
 * Kainaw's very first comment at Talk:Chessmetrics was agressive and uncivil, and another editor promptly agreed than at an apology was due. Kainaw then went on to insult the whole of Wikiproject Chess publicly at Talk:Chessmetrics, and has published no retraction at [[Talk:Chessmetrics.
 * The sad fact is that there are bullies and louts on Wikipedia as well as pleasant and knowledgeable people, and I've seen bullies deter knowledgeable editors from contributing. That's the reason for my "fight fire with fire" policy. I'm not at all thin-skinned, but I think allowing persistent bullying will harm Wikipedia. -- 07:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Do we agree so far on what happened and when it happened? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * See my notes above. -- Philcha (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)